9 cases won so far in 2018 by CostaluzLawyers

Hi Maria have you won any cases on Sierra golf balsicas against bbva thanks Gary 

Dear Gazzap:

Yes, we have:

https://www.costaluzlawyers.es/2016/05/ley-571968-won-case-first-instance-court-bbva-client-purchased-off-plan-property-developer-procobar-s-sierra-golflo-escobar-sucina-murcia/

https://www.costaluzlawyers.es/2017/01/developments-developers-won-cases/

Well done Maria.

Have any of these case wins that you identified below NOT received interest backdated to date of deposit within their rulings, and if so would it be possible to identify the actual court that issued these rulings ?

Many thanks.

Hi Maria

Have you won any claims against Palmera Properties?

Palmera Properties:

We have won cases against developers and are preparing preliminary judicial request to obtain information on the path money follow after it was deposited by Palmera Lawyers into Palmera´s bank accounts.

Good luck Maria.

Just out of interest is a conveyancing lawyer obligated to retain and safeguard clients’ banking evidence of this nature and if so is there any time limit to this requirement?

Going forward, has any register now been established that Banks have to comply with to assist cross referencing of developers and their Guarantor Banks?

I have to keep asking the question however, why are INALIENABLE rights afforded to the off plan purchaser able to be continually challenged in this manner by the Banks, when it has been proven time and time again during this last decade and beyond, that according to law, it is Banks’  legal responsibility as guarantors on any given offplan development to correctly administer and safeguard all off plan deposited monies FROM THE OUTSET OF DEPOSIT, so it is their negligence and non adherence to existing law in place to protect, which has placed the innocent claimant at unnecessary risk in this manner?

Isn’t the bottom line that the Guarantor Banks remain ultimately responsible for return of deposited monies ( and backdated interest) in the event of developer breach?

Ads: Adding answers below in bold green: 

Just out of interest is a conveyancing lawyer obligated to retain and safeguard clients’ banking evidence of this nature and if so is there any time limit to this requirement? If a property was not completed, and bearing in mind that buyers can act against developer's banks for a period of 15 years, it is 15 years after failed completion deadline that lawyers need to keep this correspondence.

Going forward, has any register now been established that Banks have to comply with to assist cross-referencing of developers and their Guarantor Banks? No, it has not.

I have to keep asking the question however, why are INALIENABLE rights afforded to the off plan purchaser able to be continually challenged in this manner by the Banks, when it has been proven time and time again during this last decade and beyond, that according to law, it is Banks’  legal responsibility as guarantors on any given offplan development to correctly administer and safeguard all off plan deposited monies FROM THE OUTSET OF DEPOSIT, so it is their negligence and non adherence to existing law in place to protect, which has placed the innocent claimant at unnecessary risk in this manner? As said in other posts, every case has different and multiple angles and Banks keep trying their defense.

Isn’t the bottom line that the Guarantor Banks remain ultimately responsible for the return of deposited monies ( and backdated interest) in the event of developer breach? Guarantors or depositors Banks

Thank you sincerely for your continuing educative posts.

Your commitment to challenge the Banks and remain aware of their continuing ploys, plus your exhaustive efforts in fighting for justice is so much appreciated. :)

Thanks, Ads. Not easy at all. Continued effort during years.

Good that you appreciate the efforts as some Law Firms just by paying publicity on this website, try to take good advantage of all the educative efforts provided.

I hope people are able to differentiate between commitment  and pure commercial opportunism.

M

I completely agree Maria, but no one should doubt your commitment and resolve. 

 All claimants need to recognise that those firms giving “ lip service “ without full comprehension of the detailed methods that Banks continue to exploit, or without willingness to put in the necessary effort required to resolve complex issues, can indeed place them at further risk.

But equally at the end of the day we all depend upon a system of justice that consistently recognises and adequately responds to manipulative and unethical ploys by powerful financial institutions intent on avoiding their legal obligations according to law. 

There comes a point where Banks challenges on this magnitude undermine the rule of law and have the potential, if claimants are left at risk via lack of timely supportive SC doctrine, to manipulatively exploit unnecessary elements of doubt and in so doing also undermine the system of justice.

Such an outcome is not in anyone’s interests ( other than the Banks), so all we can hope is that the judiciary stay strong and consistent and recognise interim case law and respect SC clarification that has taken so long to achieve, until such time as outstanding SC doctrine is achieved.

Your educative endeavours go a long way to ensuring that these uncomfortable realities are identified and hopefully ultimately resolved, as we all look forward to making Banks fully accountable for their negligences and disrespect / non adherence to a law intended to protect.

For that you and your law firm deserve great respect and support .....

What was the circumstances of the Corvera winning case?

BANKINTER (formerly Banco Intercontinental Espanol) was sentenced to refund the full off plan deposit paid by the buyer plus interest from the date the amounts were paid to the Corvera bank account.

Costs of the First Instance procedure were imposed on the defendant bank.

Interesting statements from the Judge in the Sentence were:

“The Bank is in rebellion as it did not file a defence to the Lawsuit.

The plaintiffs claim the sum of xxx,xxx€ paid for a house due to be constructed by the developer in the promotion ‘Corvera Golf & Country Club’. 

As the developer failed to construct the housing on time according to the Purchase Contract the plaintiffs originally filed a Lawsuit against the developer for judicial resolution of the purchase contract.  The case against Corvera was lost in the First Instance Court, however following an Appeal the Provincial Appeal Court revoked the First Instance Sentence and upheld the claims of the plaintiff.  The Sentence terminated the Purchase Contract and condemned the developer to the repayment of the amounts paid on account.  Corvera never paid.  The Sentence also refers to the Guarantee issued by the defendant bank.

The Guarantee contains an expiry date of May 2009 and a limit on the amount of interest.  These limitations are not valid.

Having been duly demonstrated that the defendant bank endorsed Corvera Golf & Country Club SL for the sum claimed and that the beneficiaries of the Guarantee are the plaintiffs in this Lawsuit, the claim must be upheld in full”

 

Great result Keith.

Can I ask, where the judge identified "“The Bank is in rebellion as it did not file a defence to the Lawsuit." ..

did the Bank not file any defence against this Bank claim? Was the Bank by not defending the lawsuit endeavouring to avoid supportive case law which would have assisted other claims going forward? Or were they trying to limit their financial overheads associated with defending such action?

Nevertheless, does this in any way act as supportive legal precedence for future claims against this Bank, as it infers that being "in rebellion" is acting in bad faith, and demonstrates disrespect for its financial obligations as guarantor, according to all articles of Ley 57/68?